Your Guide to Anything and Everything Boston

Confession time. I'm really, really, really NOT into politics. And I know, if I don't vote, then I can't complain. Therefore, I don't complain. I did get an email recently, though, letting me know that there is a vote coming up to legalize medical marijuana.

I find that interesting. I still remember when we couldn't buy alcohol on Sundays. Now we're legalizing medical marijuana? Look how progressive we've become.

If Massachusetts voters approve Question 3 on the November ballot, the state will permit up to 35 nonprofit “medical marijuana treatment centers” around the state. Those centers will be allowed to sell a 60-day supply of pot to anyone with a doctor’s note that’s been approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. (The ballot question leaves it to the Department of Public Health to define what constitutes a 60-day supply.) Patients with a financial hardship or without access to a dispensary may also be allowed to grow an equivalent amount of pot.

Medical marijuana has been overwhelmingly popular with American voters
since California put up the first citizens’ ballot, in 1996. In all, 17
states and the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for
medicinal use....

Boston Magazine has an article on this for those of you who are interested. I made it through the first three pages before my A.D.D. kicked in and I lost interest. I'm not a smoker, so It doesn't really affect me. That is until I get diagnosed with glaucoma, I suppose.

1 Response to "Will We Legalize Medical Marijuana?"

I implore you to vote "yes" on question 3. Medical marijuana has a lot of potential to ease the suffering of many people with conditions such as MS, neuropathic pain, psychiatric conditions, etc.

Entities such as the DuPont corporation have worked hard to put forth the idea that cannabis has no medical value, such as their questionable conclusions reached the study "Kleber HD; DuPont RL: Physicians and medical marijuana. Am J Psychiatry 2012; 169:564–568"--but this is not intellectually honest.

This study did express concern about smoking as a method of cannabis ingestion. However, smoking is certainly NOT the only effective way of consuming medicinal cannabis. If cannabis were allowed for medical purposes, patients could freely discuss safer methods of consumption with their physicians, or perhaps even receive preparations of cannabis that did not require smoking ready-made, such as via biscuit or elixir.

You may have heard of the drug "marinol", a synthetic form of THC--however, this is not medical marijuana; it lacks all other constituents of cannabis, such as CBD and other cannabinoids that may in fact be of use to patients, and many have complained of unfortunate side effects from this pure synthetic THC. It is also a very stigmatized drug anyway, and rarely prescribed (whereas drugs that are objectively more dangerous such as Oxycodone are prescribed rather freely).

Furthermore, providing a legitimate source of medical marijuana would prevent the sick from being subjected to the risk of tainted cannabis; it would also allow patients, under the advice of their physicians, to make sound medical decisions for what best helps themselves.

In a country where physicians can legally prescribe methamphetamine (Desoxyn) to a patient (even off-label, i.e. for any reason whatsoever), yet are legally prohibited from even speaking to patients about medical marijuana should they feel that cannabis may be beneficial to these patients, please help restore some sanity, at least here in the Bay State. Thank you.